Environment committee  The bill is very clear that the right applies to the entire act. As written, it currently applies to every decision taken under the act. One of the potential downsides to listing one or two of the many decisions that are taken on a regular basis under the act is the possibility o

Environment committee  Maybe I can start. There are essentially two questions there. One is with respect to labelling and the other is with respect to what we would call a class approach. We think there is no contradiction between the consultation process that's under way on labelling and the amendm

Environment committee  Maybe I can jump in—sorry, Jackie—and then we can turn to Jackie and Greg. First of all, it's probably important to recognize the context here. I described in response to a previous question that close to 15 years ago we developed a plan to look at the many thousands of substanc

Environment committee  Maybe I can answer that. I am John Moffet, the ADM at the environmental protection branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada. There are two parts to your question. One is with respect to the 98% and the second is with respect to what we are improving. First of all, in f

Agriculture committee  I apologize. I'm not really equipped or appropriately placed to provide advice about recommended policy direction. We're available to provide commentary on the way existing policies work, or the background rationale for policy.

Environment committee  I'm not sure I would characterize the issue as a loophole. As our associate deputy minister explained, the goal of the clean fuel regulation is to reduce the life-cycle intensity of fuel. If we reduce the carbon intensity of the production of fuel in Canada, regardless of where

Environment committee  Maybe I can start the answer. The gap arises in a lot of circumstances, in that when measures are developed, it's generally possible to develop a very rudimentary assessment of the likely emission reductions associated with a measure. That initial assessment is very different fr

Environment committee  No, that's not the answer. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The reason is that measures are interactive. You cannot simply add one to another. What we do is discount the interactive effect and look at only the additional impact, and that's why there are different numbers.

Environment committee  Perhaps I could start, Mr. Chair. Without getting into all the details that are provided in the “2030 Emissions Reduction Plan”, I think the key point is that it represents the current plan and it does indeed take some steps to address at least some of the recommendations made b

Environment committee  Perhaps I could ask what you mean by “negotiable”.

Environment committee  Sorry, there's a big echo. I wonder if somebody's not on mute.

Environment committee  Okay, the echo is gone. The 2026 that I think you're referring to is our commitment to do an interim review of the new benchmark criteria. We don't plan to do that earlier than 2026. We plan to start it well before 2026, but the idea would be to.... We've established criteria

Environment committee  Can I just respond to that? The audit also acknowledges, however, that we have strengthened the benchmark criteria. What I'm referring to are the new benchmark criteria for 2023 to 2030 that were put in place after the audit was concluded.

Environment committee  The current regulations are intended as an initial step, so we are looking very closely at the recommendations from the University of Victoria and others about ways in which the regulatory regime for single-use plastics should be expanded in the future.

Environment committee  The clean fuel standard is very much inspired by and based on the clean fuel standards that have been developed in other jurisdictions. We have developed a refined life-cycle analysis tool that is specific to Canadian circumstances and that is based on best practices globally.